interesting point about the SC immunity decision. any lawfags wanna address the second half of this?
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
oh I thought you were deleting yours to clear up this comment section, and so i followed suit.
how you gonna accuse me and block me for something that you also did?
:c oh well.. i should probably take a break from the internet for today. its too nice out.
I, personally, believe the "legal people" got the US into this Communist movement from the beginning. They start by sticking the "camel's nose" under the tent, using legal arguments as to why we can't fight the process; like people have rights and we can't dispose, or take, those rights away. I do believe lawyers serve a purpose, but if you look back in history the founding fathers used very little words to say what they wanted to say and the fewer words the less chance of readers getting confused. Today most want 40 pages, or more as if they are paid by the word, to say something fairly simple. I think, and it is my opinion, that lawyers put a lot of verbiage into laws so people can take from it what they want. Simplify the statements so we can all understand them and we can understand the meaning of what is stated.
Exactly.
The problem is that the whole legal system has been placed on a pedestal, we refer to a judge as “your honour”, why they are just civil servants and are prone to bias and political prejudice as we can witness daily worldwide.
The whole system needs a simplification reset urgently.